On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 12:04:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:48:29 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:22:40AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007 16:15:24 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:14:08 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 12:04:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:48:29 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:22:40AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri,
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:47:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:14:08 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 12:04:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:48:29 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Mattia Dongili wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 12:04:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:48:29 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:22:40AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007 16:15:24 +0900
Previously, acpi_osi= would completely disable the OS Interface strings
advertised by Linux to the BIOS. This is unchanged, and now
acpi_osi=string adds the interface string, and
acpi_osi=!string invalidates the pre-defined interface string
eg. acpi_osi=!Windows 2006
will disable our claim to be
_OSI(Linux) is like _OS(Linux), it is ill-defined and
virtually no BIOS vendors test interaction with it.
As a result, it can do more damage than good because
it causes the BIOS to follow un-tested paths.
Recently, several machines have turned up that erroneously
test this string in a way which
Applied a refreshed version of this patch.
(thought I had done so a while ago)
thanks,
-Len
On Sunday 19 November 2006 17:01, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Len, can you queue this one for after 2.6.19 inclusion, please.
With this and a firmwarekit test it should be possible to identify
not working
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:38:04AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Mattia Dongili wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 12:04:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:48:29 +0900 Mattia Dongili [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at
On Sunday 20 May 2007, Mattia Dongili wrote:
$ cat /proc/acpi/wakeup
DeviceS-state Status Sysfs node
PWRBS4*enabled
S1F0S4 disabled
S1F1S4 disabled
S1F2S4 disabled
S1F3S4 disabled
S1F4S4 disabled
S1F5S4
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 06:22:23PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
On Sunday 20 May 2007, Mattia Dongili wrote:
$ cat /proc/acpi/wakeup
Device S-state Status Sysfs node
PWRB S4*enabled
S1F0 S4 disabled
S1F1 S4 disabled
S1F2
On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:42, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 06:28:08PM +0300, Mircea Bardac wrote:
I've noticed a weird behaviour when monitoring roughly the number of
interrupts fired. The number of interrupts for i8042 increase
dramatically
when I move the pointer
On Saturday 19 May 2007 15:56, Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 15:17 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 17 May 2007 05:23, Pavel Machek wrote:
ACPI: thermal trip points are read-only
What was the rationale? Can we get this one reverted?
Some machines (HP
12 matches
Mail list logo
